God is not more merciful than most humans.

[DanieltheDragon]

In order for humans to forgive we go through an emotional state and move past the slight.

In order for God to forgive he has to have a ritualistic blood sacrifice involving torture of a pure being to forgive even the slightest of offenses.


How can God be all powerful if he is restricted in his ability to forgive?

How can God be all merciful if there is a sacrifice restriction on his mercy?

Why does God have a lower capacity of forgiveness than humans?

[Mike Boone]

[Replying to post 96 by tam]

Hi tam. Hope this evening finds you well.

And I certainly understand how you could take the statements that the bible presents Jesus as having made, literally.

But a major reason that I don't personally consider many of Christ's biblical statements to be very credible, is because of a few places in the New Testament where Jesus was speaking to groups of people, and the bible quotes him as saying to those folks that he would return in his 2nd Coming, and establish his kingdom on earth, while many of those listening to him were still alive. After describing his return to one audience, including his coming through the clouds to set up his earthy kingdom, Jesus then says: "That before all of you standing here have tasted death, all these things will come to pass."

Even C.S. Lewis, the man often called the 20th Century's greatest defender of the Christian faith, called the passages where Jesus made his prophecy that his 2nd Coming would take place in the 1st Century: "The most embarrassing part of the bible". And C.S. Lewis went on to write "Apparently, Christ didn't know better, than anyone else, when the world will end."

Of course, if Christ actually didn't know when the world, as we know it, will end, then he should not have acted like he had that knowledge, by making a prophecy that he would change the world by establishing his kingdom in the 1st Century, which, of course, turned out to be a false prediction since Christians are still waiting for Jesus to get here and establish his long awaited kingdom. But I must say that Christ's fans sure have amazing patience, considering that it's almost 2,000 years past the time that he promised to get back here.

So, I'm sorry, tam, because if Jesus was really the divine son of God, he sure wouldn't have made a huge mistake like making his phony prophecy, a prediction that most folks would probably define as a lie.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 100 by Mike Boone]

Did you miss my comment that Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in hell? If so, you might like to take note of that fact here.

[JehovahsWitness]

I however tend to extract some less obvious meanings, for example, "me" I take to be mean an individual person talking about himself, rather than "qualities".

I think, JW, you have misunderstood my post. The personal pronoun ME indubitably means the first person singular.

Jesus says I am X. But that is literally impossible, so he means I am figuratively X.
Follow me then means follow the path, for he means I am the path. Follow me then means follow truth and find life.

Why should we take "me" in this figurative sense? Because Christ presented it as such. To do otherwise is to accept figurative language in the first half and then jump into literal language in the second. This is an error.

Thanks for your clarification. I see the value of avoiding my "own benign interpretations" in favor or your taking scripture at its most basic meaning. I will definitely bookmark your post for future reference.

I see now that you are saying that when Jesus compared himself to "the way" a reasonable person would take that figuratively as to mean "the means by which one accesses" and that, as you seem to be implying that would render it impossible that the ME can be literally the first person singular because you cannot have "figurative language in the first half and then jump into literal language in the second." Therefore the "me" in the "except through me" must be a metaphoric "me" rather than literally him (Jesus).

What you say makes how people use metaphors much clearer to me. For example if someone says "My wife is the apple of my eye" since "apple of my eye" is a metaphor, "My wife" cannot be taken to mean the person to whom I am married, because that would be mixing the literal ("my wife") with the figurative (apple of my eye). (Jesus said "I am" ---> and then he followed this with --- > a metaphor; he didn't say the apple of your eye, but he said "the way". Since "the way" is a metaphor the "I am" cannot refer to him, just as the "My wife" cannot literally refer to the woman to whom I am.

And if I was to say "you could have knocked me over with a feather" since knocking a person over with such a light object would be impossible, it is reasonable to conclude that I am speaking metaphorically. And since you cannot mix anything metaphoric with a word that is literal, "you could have knocked ME over with a feather" , the ME right in the middle must be a metaphoric me and I cannot literally be referring to me as in myself as an individual.

I know Jesus used a lot of such expressions he said "I am the door" "I am the vine you are the branches", "I am the shepherd" ... and I always took it that the *I* referred literally to himself (Jesus) as an individual but that he was using a metaphor to explain features of his (Jesus' = *I* /ME) role in God's eyes. I see now why many would find my explanations obscure, since you cannot have a single word that retains its literal meaning when speaking metaphorically.

What you are saying is much clear to me now.


Thanks,

JW

[Monta]

[Replying to post 67 by Mike Boone]

"Now this Jewish biblical expert said that the word rod in that passage had nothing to do with it being a stick, or other object, that would be used to strike a child. Instead, this man insisted that rod was a term that meant Jewish law. So the biblical passage actually means "Spare the law, and you spoil the child."

I will always wonder how many millions of people took to using rods on their children due to that passage that the biblical scholar said they had simply misunderstood."

That is very good for us to remember.

We can not walk into the OT and try to make things fit according to today's meaning of language.
For Christians it is the NT. Whatever we need to know aout OT is in it.

[marco]

Why understand these words to be metaphor?

Because that is what they are. When Christ says he is the vine he's not literally meaning he produces grapes. When he says he's a way, he is not a way but he means the way is through what he teaches.

From the past tense (as in, before Christ came in the flesh), I am not so sure that they did not know (or acknowledge) Christ.

It is possible to claim that when prophets issued grandiose statements, the words referred to Christ. But this is special pleading. In the text:

"A man dressed in linen, with a gold belt around His waist, body like chyrsolite, face like lightning, eyes like flaming torches ......"

there is nothing to associate this frightening vision with the character of Christ in the New Testament.

When people of the nations who do not have the law, do NATURALLY the requirements of the law, they show that the law is written upon their hearts, and they are a law unto themselves.

This perfectly illustrates my point; Christ displayed the requirements for getting to heaven and others can acquire them too, without Christ. No one gets to the father without having these requirements, as Jesus said. He is not the sole seller as Paul shows.

What lessons of the Samaritans are you referring to please?

Only that the virtues that take us to heaven can be found in those outside of our groups, as was the Samaritan.

But that is not what He said. I understand that this is what some teach and take His words to mean.

But His words are EXACTLY,

I am the Way, the Truth, the Life.

Back on page one. I am a motorway is a metaphor. It needs interpretation. So if he says "I am a motorway and you get to Heaven via ME" he means you get to heaven by the motorway, of which I am an example. The word, ME, continues the metaphor and makes perfect sense when applied to those people who lead exemplary lives but did not or do not know Jesus. They followed the motorway Christ was talking about, but discovered it through some other means.

I know it is nice to take the interpretation that Christ is saying me, me, me - but in fact he is pointing to the means to get to heaven, and he is offering these. Others can offer them too. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe. Go well, Tam.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 91 by JehovahsWitness]



[center]Unverified life saving truths
Part One[/center]

Since not everything that is true is verifiable, one might miss out on many truths, even possibly essential life saving truths, if one restricted oneself to only verifiable facts.

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Could you give us one example of a truth that you don't know about that could potentially save your life that is not religious?
  
  

____________

[Mike Boone]

[Replying to post 100 by Mike Boone]

Did you miss my comment that Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in hell? If so, you might like to take note of that fact here.

JehovahsWitness, I apologize for being such a poor student. It is absolutely fascinating to me that folks of your faith reject the parts of the bible where Christ makes it perfectly clear that he believes that Hell is real.

The Christ of the bible talks about the people who are damned being "cast into a furnace of fire", and goes on and on talking about their "wailing and gnashing of teeth", in verse after verse, as if he is actually deriving some satisfaction from thinking about the torment that the condemned will be suffering forever.

JW, I'm glad that you don't believe in Hell, because as that great philosopher, Bertrand Russell said, no one who believes in everlasting punishment can really claim to be a civilized or humane person.

I must say though, JW, that if Jehovah's Witnesses are correct that Christ was wrong, because Hell is nothing but the sadistic and cruel man made idea that I've always thought it to be, then, an awful lot of bible believing Christians are just wasting their time trying to make sure that everyone is "saved" from this mythical place.

Thank you, JehovahsWitness, for setting me straight, and showing me that I should strive to do a better job in paying close attention to everything that is said on our forum. Take care.

[tam]

Peace to you Marco,

Why understand these words to be metaphor?

Because that is what they are. When Christ says he is the vine he's not literally meaning he produces grapes.

True, but He is literally speaking of Himself. Not just His teachings, but He, Himself.

I am the vine (you are the branches).

When he says he's a way, he is not a way but he means the way is through what he teaches.

I know some people believe this is what He meant. But this is not what He said.

So could you follow that through? Using the words truth and life?

From the past tense (as in, before Christ came in the flesh), I am not so sure that they did not know (or acknowledge) Christ.

It is possible to claim that when prophets issued grandiose statements, the words referred to Christ. But this is special pleading. In the text:

"A man dressed in linen, with a gold belt around His waist, body like chyrsolite, face like lightning, eyes like flaming torches ......"

there is nothing to associate this frightening vision with the character of Christ in the New Testament.

Except for the description of Christ in Revelation that John describes, as I shared. Regardless of appearance, however, He is still HIMSELF, and so why would there be something to be frightened of? Man should learn not to judge by appearance. His sheep know Him by His VOICE.

In any case, since we are speaking of what Christ meant, then I think it is fair to enter into the discussion His words as evidence with regard to prophets in the OT speaking of an knowing Him. Such as David, Moses, Abraham (and Daniel also in his vision of the one approaching the Ancient of Days, I think that is Daniel 7:13).

When people of the nations who do not have the law, do NATURALLY the requirements of the law, they show that the law is written upon their hearts, and they are a law unto themselves.

This perfectly illustrates my point; Christ displayed the requirements for getting to heaven and others can acquire them too, without Christ. No one gets to the father without having these requirements, as Jesus said. He is not the sole seller as Paul shows.

No one comes to the Father except through Christ. No one enters the Kingdom either, except through Christ, even though they may have the law of love upon their hearts and be granted entry due to love and mercy. Especially since Christ promised that one who gave even a cold cup of water to one of the little ones who belong to Him, would not lose their reward.


The sheep and the goats parable. The sheep who enter (and these are not Christian) enter due to having done good to even a least one of Christ brothers, unknowingly doing good to Christ. Because doing good to one of His means doing good to Him. They do this because of the law (of love) being written upon their hearts.

But no one enters before the Father except through Christ, with His permission. Just as no one could enter into the Most Holy Place except through the Holy Place. (unless they were thieves and breaking in, but that would not see them rewarded).

What lessons of the Samaritans are you referring to please?

Only that the virtues that take us to heaven can be found in those outside of our groups, as was the Samaritan.

Okay, well, see above.

(Note though that the Samaritans were also literal Israel, from the ten tribe northern Kingdom)

But that is not what He said. I understand that this is what some teach and take His words to mean.

But His words are EXACTLY,

I am the Way, the Truth, the Life.

Back on page one. I am a motorway is a metaphor. It needs interpretation. So if he says "I am a motorway and you get to Heaven via ME" he means you get to heaven by the motorway, of which I am an example.

No, I don't think that is right.

If He says "I am a motorway" (though this is not what He said), and you get to 'heaven' (though that is also not what He said) via ME, He means that HE is the 'motorway' by which you get to 'heaven'.


Motorway is the metaphor, not ME.

However, He said WAY, not motorway, and WAY does not need to be a metaphor at all.

I know it is nice to take the interpretation that Christ is saying me, me, me

That is not an interpretation. That is exactly what He said. What you (and others) are doing IS the interpretation.

When you apply a different meaning to the word 'me', then you are interpreting.

- but in fact he is pointing to the means to get to heaven,

To get to the Father. And He says that He is that means.


Lets use John 11:25 for example:

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies.

Was Lazarus resurrected by the teachings of Christ? Or by Christ, Himself? Do the teachings of Christ give life... or does Christ Himself give life?

It may seem like a subtle difference to some, but it is a difference.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 107 by Mike Boone]

You are most welcome. I will just point out I don't believe Jesus was wrong, I believe that you are. You seem to believe that Jesus was speaking literally in Matthew 13:50 and in that you are in error, he was speaking metaphorically.

Again, no need to thank me, whatever I point out to you is my honour and privilege to do so.

JW

[Mike Boone]

[Replying to post 108 by tam]

Hi tam. Hope that your day is progressing as you would wish.

You've previously mentioned Christ's words in the bible "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life."

But as I noted in another post, the bible also quotes Christ as saying directly to people who he was preaching to, that before many of them had left this life, HE would have returned and established his Kingdom On Earth.

Now since neither Christ's Second Coming, nor the establishment of his Kingdom, took place in the 1st Century, (or anytime since) though HE had promised that these events would take place then, why should anyone believe that Jesus is the Truth, when he obviously didn't speak the truth regarding events that are of such critical importance to Christians?

I mean, when even that great defender of the Christian faith, C.S. Lewis, admits that Christ was not speaking the truth when making his obviously false promise, we have a very serious problem regarding the credibility of Jesus Christ.

tam, I would greatly appreciate hearing your response to the above.